Incorporating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into a clinical quality registry (CQR) for ovarian cancer: considerations and challenges.

As medical treatment increasingly focuses on improving health-related quality of life, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are an essential component of clinical research. The National Gynae-Oncology Registry (NGOR) is an Australian clinical quality registry. A suitable PROM was required for the NGOR ovarian cancer module to complement clinical outcomes and provide insights into outcomes important to patients. Our narrative review aimed to identify existing ovarian cancer-specific PROMs and ascertain which tool would be most appropriate for implementation into the NGOR ovarian cancer module.A literature review of Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE and PubMed databases was performed to identify existing ovarian cancer-specific PROM tools. A steering committee was convened to (1) determine the purpose of, and criteria for our required PROM; and (2) to review the available tools against the criteria and recommend the most appropriate one for implementation within the NGOR.The literature review yielded five tools: MOST, EORTC QLQ-OV28, FACIT-O, NFOSI-18 and QOL-OVCA. All were developed and validated for use in clinical trials, but none had been validated for use in clinical quality registry. Our expert steering committee pre-determined purpose of a PROM tool for use within the NGOR was to enable cross-service comparison and benchmarking to drive quality improvements. They identified that while there was no ideal, pre-existing, ovarian cancer-specific PROM tool for implementation into the NGOR, on the basis of its psychometric properties, its available translations, its length and its ability to be adapted, the EORTC tool is most fit-for-purpose for integration into the NGOR.This process enabled identification of the tool most appropriate to provide insights into how ovarian cancer treatments impact patients' quality of life and permit benchmarking across health services.

SCANPatient: study protocol for a multi-centre, batched, stepped wedge, comparative effectiveness, randomised clinical trial of synoptic reporting of computerised tomography (CT) scans assessing cancers of the pancreas.

BACKGROUND: Complete surgical removal of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is central to all curative treatment approaches for this aggressive disease, yet this is only possible in patients technically amenable to resection. Hence, an accurate assessment of whether patients are suitable for surgery is of paramount importance. The SCANPatient trial aims to test whether implementing a structured synoptic radiological report results in increased institutional accuracy in defining surgical resectability of non-metastatic PDAC. METHODS: SCANPatient is a batched, stepped wedge, comparative effectiveness, cluster randomised clinical trial. The trial will be conducted at 33 Australian hospitals all of which hold regular multi-disciplinary team meetings (MDMs) to discuss newly diagnosed patients with PDAC. Each site is required to manage a minimum of 20 patients per year (across all stages). Hospitals will be randomised to begin synoptic reporting within a batched, stepped wedge design. Initially all hospitals will continue to use their current reporting method; within each batch, after each 6-month period, a randomly selected group of hospitals will commence using the synoptic reports, until all hospitals are using synoptic reporting. Each hospital will provide data from patients who (i) are aged 18 or older; (ii) have suspected PDAC and have an abdominal CT scan, and (iii) are presented at a participating MDM. Non-metastatic patients will be documented as one of the following categories: (1) locally advanced and surgically unresectable; (2) borderline resectable; or (3) anatomically clearly resectable (Note: Metastatic disease is treated as a separate category). Data collection will last for 36 months in each batch, and a total of 2400 patients will be included. DISCUSSION: Better classifying patients with non-metastatic PDAC as having tumours that are either clearly resectable, borderline or locally advanced and unresectable may improve patient outcomes by optimising care and treatment planning. The borderline resectable group are a small but important cohort in whom surgery with curative intent may be considered; however, inconsistencies with definitions and an understanding of resectability status means these patients are often incorrectly classified and hence overlooked for curative options. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The SCANPatient trial was registered on 17th May 2023 in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) (ACTRN12623000508673).

Prognostic value of liver metastases in colorectal cancer treated by systemic therapy: An ARCAD pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: The liver is the most frequent site of metastases in colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to assess the response rate and survival outcomes in metastatic CRC patients with non-liver metastases (NLM) compared to those with liver metastases (LM) across different lines of treatment. METHODS: A total of 17,924 mCRC patients included in 26 trials from the ARCAD CRC database were analyzed. The analysis was conducted based on the presence or absence of LM across different treatment groups: chemotherapy (CT) alone, CT + anti-VEGF, CT + anti-EGFR in KRAS wild-type tumors, within the first-line (1 L) and second-line (2 L), and patients enrolled in third-line (≥3 L) trials treated with trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib or placebo. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Out of the 17,924 patients, 14,066 had LM (30.6 % with only liver involvement and 69.4 % with liver and other metastatic sites), while 3858 patients had NLM. In the CT alone and CT + anti-VEGF subgroups, NLM patients showed better OS and PFS in the 1 L and 2 L settings. However, in the CT + anti-EGFR 1 L and 2 L subgroups, there was no significant difference in OS and PFS between NLM and LM patients. In the ≥ 3 L subgroups, better OS and PFS were observed in NLM patients. ORRs were higher in LM patients than in NLM patients across all cohorts treated in the 1 L and only in the anti-EGFR cohort in the 2 L. CONCLUSION: LM is a poor prognostic factor for mCRC increasing from 1 L to ≥ 3 L except for patients in 1 L and 2 L receiving CT+anti-EGFR. These data justify using LM as a stratification factor in future trials for patients with unresectable mCRC.

Different Patterns of Care and Survival Outcomes in Transplant-Centre Managed Patients with Early-Stage HCC: Real-World Data from an Australian Multi-Centre Cohort Study.

The management of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is complex, with multiple treatment strategies available. There is a paucity of literature regarding variations in the patterns of care and outcomes between transplant and non-transplant centres. We conducted this real-world multi-centre cohort study in two liver cancer referral centres with an integrated liver transplant program and an additional eight non-transplant HCC referral centres across Australia to identify variation in patterns of care and key survival outcomes. Patients with stage Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) 0/A HCC, first diagnosed between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2020, who were managed at a participating site, were included in the study. Patients were excluded if they had a history of prior HCC or if they received upfront liver transplantation. A total of 887 patients were included in the study, with 433 patients managed at a liver cancer centre with a transplant program (LTC) and 454 patients managed at a non-transplant centre (NTC). Management at an LTC did not significantly predict allocation to resection (adjusted OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.11, p = 0.148). However, in those not receiving resection, LTC and NTC patients were systematically managed differently, with LTC patients five times less likely to receive upfront ablation than NTC patients (adjusted OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.28, p < 0.001), even after adjusting for tumour burden, as well as for age, gender, liver disease aetiology, liver disease severity, and medical comorbidities. LTCs exhibited significantly higher proportions of patients undergoing TACE for every tumour burden category, including those with a single tumour measuring 2 cm or less (p < 0.001). Using multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, management at a transplant centre was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.98, p = 0.036), and competing-risk regression analysis, considering liver transplant as a competing event, demonstrated a similar reduction in risk (adjusted HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99, p = 0.041), suggesting that the reduced risk of death is not fully explained by higher rates of transplantation. Our study highlights systematic differences in HCC care between large volume liver transplant centres and other sites, which has not previously been well-described. Further work is needed to better define the reasons for differences in treatment allocation and to aim to minimise unwarranted treatment variation to maximise patient outcomes across Australia.

A cost comparison of pembrolizumab: Fixed and weight-based dosing.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor, indicated to treat multiple cancers, was initially approved in Australia as weight-based dosing at 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks (Q3W). Subsequent approvals used 'fixed' dosages of 200 mg Q3W or 400 mg every 6 weeks (Q6W). Pharmacokinetic equivalence was demonstrated between dosing strategies, with no significant differences in efficacy or toxicity. Fixed dosing regimens are routinely used in Australia. AIM: To model and compare the cost of weight-based dosing of pembrolizumab to standard fixed dosing regimens. METHOD: A single centre, retrospective review was conducted. Patients, identified from dispensing software, who commenced on pembrolizumab between January and December 2022 were included. Patient demographic and treatment data was extracted from electronic medical records. Costs of weight-based doses were calculated and compared to the cost of fixed dosing. Variables such as acquisition cost, funding mechanisms and 'vial sharing' were considered. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were included (63% male, median age 68 years). Of the 211 doses of pembrolizumab administered (average 4.1 doses/patient), 161 were Q3W doses, and 50 were Q6W doses. The acquisition cost for a fixed 200 mg and 400 mg dose was $7646, and $15,292, respectively. The average patient weight was 77.6 kg (SD 19 kg), which equated to $5933 for a weight-based Q3W dose, and $11,867 for the Q6W dose; a potential cost avoidance of $1965 and $3930 per dose, respectively. This represented a possible 23.5% avoidance in medication acquisition cost. Over the study period of 1 year, using weight-based dosing for pembrolizumab had the potential to reduce medication expenditure by $467,996. DISCUSSION: Significant cost avoidance could be achieved via weight-based pembrolizumab dosing. Given the substantial total cost of pembrolizumab, the growing number of indications and the expected equivalent treatment outcomes with weight-based pembrolizumab, the potential cost reductions of weight-based pembrolizumab at both institution and government level should be further explored.

The impact of delayed diagnosis and treatment due to COVID-19 on Australian thyroid cancer patients: a qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: The study aims to investigate the perceptions of patients with thyroid cancer on the potential impact of diagnosis and treatment delays during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: This study involved qualitative semi-structured telephone interviews. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, analysed using the thematic framework analysis method and reported using the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research. SETTING: Participants in the study were treated and/or managed at hospital sites across New South Wales and Victoria, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 17 patients with thyroid cancer were interviewed and included in the analysis (14 females and 3 males). RESULTS: The delays experienced by patients ranged from <3 months to >12 months. The patients reported about delays to diagnostic tests, delays to surgery and radioactive iodine treatment, perceived disease progression and, for some, the financial burden of choosing to go through private treatment to minimise the delay. Most patients also reported not wanting to experience delays any longer than they did, due to unease and anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights an increased psychological burden in patients with thyroid cancer who experienced delayed diagnosis and/or treatment during COVID-19. The impacts experienced by patients during this time may be similar in the case of other unexpected delays and highlight the need for regular clinical review during delays to diagnosis or treatment.

Implementing Decentralized Clinical Trials in Australia through Teletrials: Where to From Here?

Implementation of decentralized approaches can improve access to clinical trials. The Australian government has focused on a teletrial model, which resources and upskills health care organisations to enable collaboration in trials to extend to rural and remote areas. This commentary describes the Australian teletrial model, its context within the established DCT model, its value, and likely challenges moving forward.

Medication reuse programs: a narrative review of the literature.

A proportion of returned medications may potentially meet quality standards to be reused safely. In Australia, there is no regulatory guidance available to facilitate such medication reuse. This narrative review aimed to identify and review international literature describing medication reuse programs to provide insight into their implementation and potential barriers. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) -based guidelines, a literature search was conducted in Medline, Scopus, and Embase using key words such as 'medication' and 'reuse' to identify relevant articles. Two reviewers ascertained eligibility for inclusion. Inclusion criteria included English language and publication after 2010. From the articles selected, identified international medication reuse programs and relevant regulatory aspects were summarized. Details, both regulatory and operational, for the specific medication reuse programs, described in the selected articles was further explored via a grey literature search. Of the 1973 identified articles, 84 were assessed for eligibility and 17 were included in this review. Of these, 14 described scenarios where medication reuse is prohibited, 2 studies described programs allowing the reuse of medication and 1 study did not discuss whether reuse was prohibited or not. From these primary articles, secondary citations were identified, with eight from gray literature. Barriers to medication reuse included exposure to environmental extremes during storage, physical appearance, evidence of tampering, safety, and efficacy concerns for the returned medication. Programs that exist globally have overcome these barriers. Several programs that provide safe and effective reuse of medications were i© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Quality in Health Care. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site-for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.dentified and described. The findings described in this review should be used to inform frameworks for legislative, regulatory, and professional practice change for medication reuse. Measures implemented in the UK's pandemic response to safely reuse medications in the nursing home and hospice settings and European medication donation programs should be further investigated. The concept of medication reuse is not novel and should be considered for the Australian setting.

Exploring patient reported quality of life in lung cancer patients: A qualitative study of patient-reported outcome measures.

OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death globally and provides a major disease burden likely to substantially impact quality of life (QoL). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been identified as effective methods of evaluating patient QoL. Existing lung cancer-specific PROMs however have uncertain utility and minimal patient involvement in their design and development. This qualitative study aimed to evaluate the patient perspective of existing PROMs and to explore their appropriateness for population-based descriptions of lung cancer-related QoL. METHODS: A descriptive qualitative study was conducted consisting of semi-structured interviews with 14 patients recruited from the Victorian Lung Cancer Registry and Alfred Hospital using purposive sampling. Interviews first explored the factors most important to lung cancer patients QoL, and second, patient's perspectives on the appropriateness of existing PROMs. Thematic analysis was used to develop themes, and content analysis was conducted to determine PROM acceptability. RESULTS: Five novel themes were identified by patients as being important impacts on QoL: Personal attitude toward the disease is important for coping; independence is valued; relationships with family and friends are important; relationships with treating team are meaningful; personal and public awareness of lung cancer is limited. These patient-identified impacts are poorly covered in existing lung cancer-specific PROMs. Patients welcomed and appreciated the opportunity to complete PROMs; however, they identified problems with existing PROMs relevance, tone, and formatting. CONCLUSION: Existing lung cancer PROMs poorly reflect the five themes identified in this study as most important to lung cancer patients QoL. This study reaffirms the need to review existing PROMs to ensure utility and construct validity. Future PROM development must engage key patient-generated themes and evolve to reflect the changing management and therapeutic landscape.

Transverse Colon Primary Tumor Location as a Biomarker in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of CCTG/AGITG CO.17 and CO.20 Randomized Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Sidedness is prognostic and predictive of anti-EGFR efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Transverse colon has been historically excluded from several analyses of sidedness and the optimal division between left- and right-sided colorectal cancer is unclear. We investigated transverse colon primary tumor location as a biomarker in mCRC. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Pooled analysis of CCTG/AGITG CO.17 and CO.20 trials of cetuximab in chemotherapy-refractory mCRC. Outcomes of patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type (WT) mCRC from CO.17 and KRAS WT mCRC from CO.20 were analyzed according to location. RESULTS: A total of 553 patients were analyzed, 32 (5.8%) with cancers from the transverse, 101 (18.3%) from right, and 420 from (75.9%) left colon. Transverse mCRC failed to reach significant benefit from cetuximab versus best supportive care (BSC) for overall survival [OS; median, 5.9 vs. 2.1 months; HR, 0.63; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.28-1.42; P=0.26] and progression-free survival (PFS; median, 1.8 vs. 1.3 months; HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.26-1.28; P=0.16). Analyzing exclusively patients randomized to cetuximab, right-sided and transverse had comparable outcomes for OS (median, 5.6 vs. 5.9 months; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.50-1.34; P=0.43) and PFS (median, 1.9 vs. 1.8 months; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.49-1.26; P=0.31). Patients with left-sided mCRC had superior outcomes with cetuximab compared with transverse for OS (median, 9.7 vs. 5.9 months; HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.67; P=0.0002) and PFS (median, 3.8 vs. 1.8 months; HR, 0,49; 95% CI, 0.31-0.76; P=0.001). Location was not prognostic in patients treated with BSC alone. CONCLUSIONS: Transverse mCRC has comparable prognostic and predictive features with right-sided mCRC.

iCare - a self-directed, interactive online program to improve health and wellbeing for people living with upper gastrointestinal or hepato-pancreato-biliary cancers, and their informal carers: the study protocol for a Phase II randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Up to 70% of people diagnosed with upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract or hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) cancers experience substantial reductions in quality of life (QoL), including high distress levels, pain, fatigue, sleep disturbances, weight loss and difficulty swallowing. With few advocacy groups and support systems for adults with upper GI or HPB cancers (i.e. pancreas, liver, stomach, bile duct and oesophageal) and their carers, online supportive care programs may represent an alternate cost-effective mechanism to support this patient group and carers. iCare is a self-directed, interactive, online program that provides information, resources, and psychological packages to patients and their carers from the treatment phase of their condition. The inception and development of iCare has been driven by consumers, advocacy groups, government and health professionals. The aims of this study are to determine the feasibility and acceptability of iCare, examine preliminary efficacy on health-related QoL and carer burden at 3- and 6-months post enrolment, and the potential cost-effectiveness of iCare, from health and societal perspectives, for both patients and carers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A Phase II randomised controlled trial. Overall, 162 people with newly diagnosed upper GI or HPB cancers and 162 carers will be recruited via the Upper GI Cancer Registry, online advertisements, or hospital clinics. Patients and carers will be randomly allocated (1:1) to the iCare program or usual care. Participant assessments will be at enrolment, 3- and 6-months later. The primary outcomes are i) feasibility, measured by eligibility, recruitment, response and attrition rates, and ii) acceptability, measured by engagement with iCare (frequency of logins, time spent using iCare, and use of features over the intervention period). Secondary outcomes are patient changes in QoL and unmet needs, and carer burden, unmet needs and QoL. Linear mixed models will be fitted to obtain preliminary estimates of efficacy and variability for secondary outcomes. The economic analysis will include a cost-consequences analysis where all outcomes will be compared with costs. DISCUSSION: iCare provides a potential model of supportive care to improve QoL, unmet needs and burden of disease among people living with upper GI or HPB cancers and their carers. AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: ACTRN12623001185651. This protocol reflects Version #1 26 April 2023.

Ripretinib versus sunitinib in gastrointestinal stromal tumor: ctDNA biomarker analysis of the phase 3 INTRIGUE trial.

INTRIGUE was an open-label, phase 3 study in adult patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor who had disease progression on or intolerance to imatinib and who were randomized to once-daily ripretinib 150 mg or sunitinib 50 mg. In the primary analysis, progression-free survival (PFS) with ripretinib was not superior to sunitinib. In clinical and nonclinical studies, ripretinib and sunitinib have demonstrated differential activity based on the exon location of KIT mutations. Therefore, we hypothesized that mutational analysis using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) might provide further insight. In this exploratory analysis (N = 362), baseline peripheral whole blood was analyzed by a 74-gene ctDNA next-generation sequencing-based assay. ctDNA was detected in 280/362 (77%) samples with KIT mutations in 213/362 patients (59%). Imatinib-resistant mutations were found in the KIT ATP-binding pocket (exons 13/14) and activation loop (exons 17/18). Mutational subgroup assessment showed 2 mutually exclusive populations with differential treatment effects. Patients with only KIT exon 11 + 13/14 mutations (ripretinib, n = 21; sunitinib, n = 20) had better PFS with sunitinib versus ripretinib (median, 15.0 versus 4.0 months). Patients with only KIT exon 11 + 17/18 mutations (ripretinib, n = 27; sunitinib, n = 25) had better PFS with ripretinib versus sunitinib (median, 14.2 versus 1.5 months). The results of this exploratory analysis suggest ctDNA sequencing may improve the prediction of the efficacy of single-drug therapies and support further evaluation of ripretinib in patients with KIT exon 11 + 17/18 mutations. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03673501.

Registry-derived stage (RD-Stage) for capturing stage at diagnosis for pancreatic carcinoma in Australia.

INTRODUCTION: Stage of pancreatic carcinoma at diagnosis is a strong prognostic indicator of morbidity and mortality, yet is poorly notified to population-based cancer registries ("cancer registries"). Registry-derived stage (RD-Stage) provides a method for cancer registries to use available data sources to compile and record stage in a consistent way. This project describes the development and validation of rules to capture RD-Stage (pancreatic carcinoma) and applies the rules to data currently captured in each Australian cancer registry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rules for deriving RD-stage (pancreatic carcinoma) were developed using the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) Staging Manual 8th edition and endorsed by an Expert Working Group comprising specialists responsible for delivering care to patients diagnosed with pancreatic carcinoma, cancer registry epidemiologists and medical coders. Completeness of data fields required to calculate RD-Stage (pancreatic carcinoma) and an overall proportion of cases for whom RD stage could be assigned was assessed using data collected by each Australian cancer registry, for period 2018-2019. A validation study compared RD-Stage (pancreatic carcinoma) calculated by the Victorian Cancer Registry with clinical stage captured by the Upper Gastro-intestinal Cancer Registry (UGICR). RESULTS: RD-Stage (pancreatic carcinoma) could not be calculated in 4/8 (50%) of cancer registries; one did not collect the required data elements while three used a staging system not compatible with RD-Stage requirements. Of the four cancer registries able to calculate RD-Stage, baseline completeness ranged from 9% to 76%. Validation of RD-Stage (pancreatic carcinoma) with UGICR data indicated that there was insufficient data available in VCR to stage 174/457 (38%) cases and that stage was unknown in 189/457 (41%) cases in the UGICR. Yet, where it could be derived, there was very good concordance at stage level (I, II, III, IV) between the two datasets. (95.2% concordance], Kendall's coefficient = 0.92). CONCLUSION: There is a lack of standardisation of data elements and data sources available to cancer registries at a national level, resulting in poor capacity to currently capture RD-Stage (pancreatic carcinoma). RD-Stage provides an excellent tool to cancer registries to capture stage when data elements required to calculate it are available to cancer registries.

Efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors for metastatic colorectal cancer with microsatellite instability in second or latter line using synthetic control arms: A non-randomised evaluation.

PURPOSE: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) appeared active in single-arm trials for patients with chemoresistant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) harboring microsatellite instability (MSI). Given the paucity of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this setting, we evaluated the effect size of ICIs using intra-patients comparison and ARCAD database as historical controls. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual-patient data from NIPICOL and CheckMate 142 phase II trials that evaluated a combination of ICIs for MSI mCRC patients (N = 176) and from five non-ICI mCRC historical RCTs in second-line or latter (N = 4026) were analyzed. Firstly, promising of ICIs was identified using intra-patient comparison based on growth modulation index (GMI) defined the ratio of progression-free survivals (PFS) on ICIs and previous line of therapy. Survival outcomes of ICIs-treated patients were then compared with those matched non-ICIs treated from ARCAD database historical RCTs. RESULTS: Among ICIs-treated patients, median PFS on ICIs was 32.66 (range 0.10-74.25) versus 4.07 months (range 0.7-49.87) on prior therapy, resulting on median GMI of 4.97 (range 0.07-59.51; hazard-ratio (HR)= 0.16 (95 %CI=0.11-0.22, P < 0.001)). Compared to matched non-ICI patients, in third-line, median overall survival (OS) was not reached with ICIs versus 3.52 months with placebo (HR=0.20, 95 %CI=0.10-0.41, P < 0.001), and 6.51 months with active drugs (HR=0.30, 95 %CI=0.15-0.60, P = 0.001). In second-line, median OS was not reached with ICIs versus 11.7 months with chemotherapy+placebo (HR=0.12, 95 %CI=0.07-0.22, P < 0.001), and 16.3 months with chemotherapy+targeted therapy (HR=0.10, 95 %CI=0.05-0.19, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: ICIs demonstrates high effect size for MSI mCRC patients in second-line and later. This work might be useful as an example of methodology to avoid RCTs when benefit from experimental therapy is likely to be high.

Cross-trial comparisons for the adjuvant treatment of MSI colorectal cancer: dare to dream the future scenarios.

The remarkable outcomes achieved with neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibitors for patients diagnosed with MSI colorectal cancer hold the potential to revolutionize the treatment landscape in this context. Specifically, the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in colon cancer and dostarlimab in rectal cancer has led to an unprecedented rate of complete pathological and clinical responses. Notably, these responses have been further substantiated by the absence of relapses, with a 0% relapse rate observed during the first year of follow-up. The significance of these achievements becomes even more apparent when compared to the relatively high relapse rates, ranging from 11% to 28%, observed in MSI colorectal cancer cases treated neoadjuvantly with chemo(radio)therapy. However, it is crucial to exercise caution when interpreting such exceptional responses in oncology, especially within a short follow-up period. The future implications of these findings will depend on how the data mature over time. In this manuscript, we attempt to explore the potential scenarios that may unfold in the near future.

Improved Survival Outcomes with Surgical Resection Compared to Ablative Therapy in Early-Stage HCC: A Large, Real-World, Propensity-Matched, Multi-Centre, Australian Cohort Study.

The optimal treatment approach in very-early and early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is not precisely defined, and there is ambiguity in the literature around the comparative efficacy of surgical resection versus ablation as curative therapies for limited disease. We performed this real-world propensity-matched, multi-centre cohort study to assess for differences in survival outcomes between those undergoing resection and those receiving ablation. Patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) 0/A HCC first diagnosed between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2020 who received ablation or resection as initial treatment were included in the study. A total of 450 patients were included in the study from 10 major liver centres including two transplant centres. Following propensity score matching using key covariates, 156 patients were available for analysis with 78 in each group. Patients who underwent resection had significantly improved overall survival (log-rank test p = 0.023) and local recurrence-free survival (log rank test p = 0.027) compared to those who received ablation. Based on real-world data, our study supports the use of surgical resection in preference to ablation as first-line curative therapy in appropriately selected BCLC 0/A HCC patients.

A tailored approach to horizon scanning for cancer medicines.

BACKGROUND: Horizon scanning (HS) is the systematic identification of emerging therapies to inform policy and decision-makers. We developed an agile and tailored HS methodology that combined multi-criteria decision analysis weighting and Delphi rounds. As secondary objectives, we aimed to identify new medicines in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer most likely to impact the Australian government's pharmaceutical budget by 2025 and to compare clinician and consumer priorities in cancer medicine reimbursement. METHOD: Three cancer-specific clinician panels (total n = 27) and a consumer panel (n = 7) were formed. Six prioritisation criteria were developed with consumer input. Criteria weightings were elicited using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Candidate medicines were identified and filtered from a primary database and validated against secondary and tertiary sources. Clinician panels participated in a three-round Delphi survey to identify and score the top five medicines in each cancer type. RESULTS: The AHP and Delphi process was completed in eight weeks. Prioritisation criteria focused on toxicity, quality of life (QoL), cost savings, strength of evidence, survival, and unmet need. In both curative and non-curative settings, consumers prioritised toxicity and QoL over survival gains, whereas clinicians prioritised survival. HS results project the ongoing prevalence of high-cost medicines. Since completion in October 2021, the HS has identified 70 % of relevant medicines submitted for Pharmaceutical Benefit Advisory Committee assessment and 60% of the medicines that received a positive recommendation. CONCLUSION: Tested in the Australian context, our method appears to be an efficient and flexible approach to HS that can be tailored to address specific disease types by using elicited weights to prioritise according to incremental value from both a consumer and clinical perspective. POLICY SUMMARY: Since HS is of global interest, our example provides a reproducible blueprint for adaptation to other healthcare settings that integrates consumer input and priorities.

Evaluation of Intratumoral Response Heterogeneity in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer and Its Impact on Patient Overall Survival: Findings from 10,551 Patients in the ARCAD Database.

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a heterogeneous disease that can evoke discordant responses to therapy among different lesions in individual patients. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria do not take into consideration response heterogeneity. We explored and developed lesion-based measurement response criteria to evaluate their prognostic effect on overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients enrolled in 17 first-line clinical trials, who had mCRC with ≥ 2 lesions at baseline, and a restaging scan by 12 weeks were included. For each patient, lesions were categorized as a progressing lesion (PL: > 20% increase in the longest diameter (LD)), responding lesion (RL: > 30% decrease in LD), or stable lesion (SL: neither PL nor RL) based on the 12-week scan. Lesion-based response criteria were defined for each patient as follows: PL only, SL only, RL only, and varied responses (mixture of RL, SL, and PL). Lesion-based response criteria and OS were correlated using stratified multivariable Cox models. The concordance between OS and classifications was measured using the C statistic. RESULTS: Among 10,551 patients with mCRC from 17 first-line studies, varied responses were noted in 51.6% of patients, among whom, 3.3% had RL/PL at 12 weeks. Among patients with RL/SL, 52% had stable disease (SD) by RECIST 1.1, and they had a longer OS (median OS (mOS) = 19.9 months) than those with SL only (mOS = 16.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 0.81 (0.76, 0.85), p < 0.001), although a shorter OS than those with RL only (mOS = 25.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 1.42 (1.32, 1.53), p < 0.001). Among patients with SL/PL, 74% had SD by RECIST 1.1, and they had a longer OS (mOS = 9.0 months) than those with PL only (mOS = 8.0 months, HR (95% CI) = 0.75 (0.57, 0.98), p = 0.040), yet a shorter OS than those with SL only (mOS = 16.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 1.98 (1.80, 2.18), p < 0.001). These associations were consistent across treatment regimen subgroups. The lesion-based response criteria showed slightly higher concordance than RECIST 1.1, although it was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Varied responses at first restaging are common among patients receiving first-line therapy for mCRC. Our lesion-based measurement criteria allowed for better mortality discrimination, which could potentially be informative for treatment decision-making and influence patient outcomes.

Patient-reported outcomes and tolerability in patients receiving ripretinib versus sunitinib after treatment with imatinib in INTRIGUE, a phase 3, open-label study.

PURPOSE: In the INTRIGUE trial, ripretinib showed no significant difference versus sunitinib in progression-free survival for patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) previously treated with imatinib. We compared the impact of these treatments on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomised 1:1 to once-daily ripretinib 150 mg or once-daily sunitinib 50 mg (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire for Cancer-30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) questionnaire at day (D)1, and D29 of all cycles until treatment discontinuation. Change from baseline was calculated. Time without symptoms or toxicity (TWiST) was estimated as the mean number of days without progression, death, or grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events per patient over 1 year of follow-up. RESULTS: Questionnaire completion at baseline was 88.1% (199/226) for ripretinib and 87.7% (199/227) for sunitinib and remained high for enrolled patients throughout treatment. Patients receiving sunitinib demonstrated within-cycle variation in self-reported HRQoL, corresponding to the on/off dosing regimen. Patients receiving ripretinib reported better HRQoL at D29 assessments than patients receiving sunitinib on all scales except constipation. HRQoL was similar between treatments at D1 assessments, following 2 weeks without treatment for sunitinib patients. TWiST was greater for ripretinib patients (173 versus 126 days). CONCLUSION: Patients receiving ripretinib experienced better HRQoL than patients receiving sunitinib during the dosing period and similar HRQoL to patients who had not received sunitinib for 2 weeks for all QLQ-C30 domains except constipation. Ripretinib may provide clinically meaningful benefit to patients with advanced GIST previously treated with imatinib.